Hi everyone, sorry for the late discussion, it's kind of a difficult season for studying a text in depth, but in reality Christmas tells us a lot about Society of the Spectacle. What do you think?

In the vein of the AudioAnarchy link I posted here a while ago (which I highly recommend -- they even prank call an Apple employee as Guy Debord), I found that the best way to read this text is to compare it to real life personal examples. The concept of "stars", for example, made me reflect on somebody very dear to me who plays that role in my community. It seems that the spectacle exists on both a macro- and a micro-cosmic scale.

This chapter reads like poetry - it reveals the true nature of the spectacle through its internal contradictions. I think this very nature of modern society is what makes detournements so easy and so striking, we can infiltrate the semiotic confusion to reveal things as they really are.

The other thing I found interesting was Debord's distinction between the concentrated and the diffused spectacle in theses 63-65. When he refers to "bureaucratic capitalism", is he referring simply to Soviet Union-style socialism? My knowledge of 20th century societies is admittedly superficial, so I was wondering what others thought, but what he describes makes me think more of Fascist Italy.

edit: Over Christmas, as you discuss a movie with your aunt and feign elation at the unwrapping of her blender, I invite you to reflect on SOTS and discuss your experience when you come back.

Thanks Oliver at this time when "Reified people proudly display the proofs of their intimacy with the commodity" (67) it is a welcome relief to discuss SOTS.

I agree with your reading of 63-65 as contrasting totalitarian societies (as concentrated spectacle) with democratic/western societies (as diffused spectacle). It is interesting to note however that 64 might now end with "If the entire Chinese population has to [consume] to the point of identifying with [consumption], this is because there is nothing else they can be."

Recent "moments of crisis" such as perhaps the (ambigiously open-ended) "war on terror" might be seen as advanced capitalism adopting concentrated methods of spectacle. Perhaps the velvet revolutions of 1989 unleashed the diffuse spectacle over Europe and beyond. The free market turn of China is a fascinating case of a command economy (concentrated spectacle) attempting to turn into an advanced capitalism (diffuse spectacle). There is presently a strange tension in China between zones of concentration/command and 'free' economic zones of diffusion.

Thesis 57 was really interesting to me. One of my profs told me about a trip to Africa he and his wife took (I'm not sure where in Africa exactly). On this trip they saw symbols and signs of large corporations, those who have a huge hand in spectacular society, spray painted all over. For example, he said he saw some kids driving a beat up old car with a Nike Swoosh on it.

The society that bears the spectacle does not dominate underdeveloped regions solely by its economic hegemony. It also dominates them as the society of the spectacle. Even where the material base is still absent, modern society has already used the spectacle to invade the social surface of every continent.

Even the margins of the world...which is to say, places which capital has not "developed" materially, the spectacle has dominated hegemonically.

I began thinking about this when I saw images of the mob of people in Libya. Most were wearing "Puma" shirts or even "American Eagle" clothing. It was really bizarre. It was at this moment that I realized the hegemonic homogenization of material conditions and their signifiers. Really, when we think about the political scenarios of Libya, they are wholly separate from the political conditions in America, but the one thing we "share in common" is the increasingly global accumulation of commodities. Or, in this case, the appearance of style. This is where the concept of unity and separation becomes very confusing, very quickly. The Libyan scenario I illustrated indicates that even in so called "developing" countries, the spectacle of media and advertising determines material conscience.

Thesis 57 reminds me of Daniel Quinn's belief (from his Ishmael books), which is probably articulated better by others elsewhere, about the diminishing pluralism of civilization - there is one civilization, and it is spectacle. Other ways of living have disappeared with the encroaching, monolithic nature of the developed world's soft power. As they begin to "play their allotted role" as Debord writes, it reminds me of Benjamin Barber's ideas on McWorld (which I always preferred to Samuel Huntington's ideas).

The discussion of commodity and psuedo-needs in this chapter is really interesting this time of year. Try to bring up pseudo-needs as you're opening your Christmas presents...try to have a discussion about the things one actually needs! What can we all agree on? What do some leave out?

I really don't know much about Marcuse...He talks about False needs in One Dimensional Man, right? From what I remember of that text the ideas are similar...I don't feel like I know enough to say more.